2016 equipment theft report - workmax

2016 Equipment Theft Report

Through a joint alliance, the National Equipment Register (NER) and the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) continue to make positive strides in deterring crime by equipment thieves. By combining services and areas of expertise, we’re providing an efficient conduit for law enforcement and insurers to identify any type of heavy equipment at any time of day and help con tractors reduce the likelihood of unknowingly purchasing stolen equipment.

Our alliance ensures that NER will continue to provide, manage, and expand its database of insurer-supplied theft reports and information about manu-facturers, owners, and damaged equipment. The NICB will extend the reach and value of that information through its nationwide network of special agents, who are trained in heavy equipment theft and available to respond to law enforcement calls for investigative assistance or identification requests.

Better ownership documentation, accurate equipment identification, proper reporting, greater site security, and an overall better understanding of the threat will continue to increase the ability of law enforcement to combat equipment theft. Awareness, education, and training are key components of an overall fraud prevention plan that may lead to immediate economic benefits for contractors, owners, and insurers.

Through our collaborative efforts, we’re reducing the cost of theft for equip-ment owners and insurers by increasing the likelihood of recovery and arrest. We’re also increasing awareness of the theft issue and promoting knowledge sharing, thus making heavy equipment a riskier target for thieves.

National Equipment Register545 Washington BoulevardJersey City, NJ [email protected]

National Insurance Crime Bureau1111 East Touhy Avenue, Suite 400Des Plaines, IL 60018847-544-7000www.nicb.org

© 2017 Verisk Crime Analytics, Inc. All rights reserved. National Equipment Register, NER, and IRONcheck are registered trademarks of Verisk Crime Analytics, Inc. ISO ClaimSearch is a registered trademark of Insurance Services Office, Inc. NICB is a registered trademark of the National Insurance Crime Bureau. All other product or corporate names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies.

An Alliance with a Purpose


Table of Contents

Introduction ..............................................................................................4

Theft Statistics .........................................................................................6

Theft by State 7

Theft by Type of Location 8

Types of Equipment Stolen 9

Frequency of Theft Compared with Other Risks 10

Theft by Manufacturer 11

Theft by Month 12

Model Year of Equipment Stolen 13

Top Ten Cities for Equipment Theft 14

Theft by Census Population 15

The Cost of Equipment Theft 16

Recovery Statistics ................................................................................17

Recovery Rates 18

Recovery by State 19

Types of Equipment Recovered 20

Recovery by Manufacturer 21

Recovery by Month 22

Model Year of Equipment Recovered 23

Top Ten Cities for Equipment Recovery 23

By The Numbers .....................................................................................24

Key Statistics 25

2016 Case Studies 26

Summary 27

Conclusion 28


Overview

The National Equipment Register (NER) and National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) annual report on equipment theft in the United States is based primarily on data the NICB drew from the National Crime Information Center’s (NCIC) database of more than 10,000 construction and farm equip-ment thefts in 2016 and information reported to ISO ClaimSearch®. We’ll continue to publish similar reports every year to help track trends using the growing volume of data available to NER and the NICB.

AimOur study provides equipment owners, insurance companies, and law enforcement with information to guide theft prevention efforts and allocate investigative resources. The study puts the information into context through notes, analyses, and conclusions that relate to the protection, investigation, and recovery of heavy equipment.

As in the past, the 2016 report seeks to answer key questions: Who steals heavy equipment, and how do they do it? How much and what types of equipment do they steal? Where do they steal equipment from, and where does it go?

Data SourcesThe NICB has access to all the data in the NCIC vehicle theft file, and it maintains a mirror image of that file. The FBI; other federal, state, local, and foreign criminal justice agencies; and authorized courts submit data on stolen vehicles, stolen vehicle parts, and mobile off-road equipment and components. The NICB uses the data to assist insurance companies in recovering stolen vehicles and mobile off-road equipment.

Since 2001, NER has developed databases of heavy equipment ownership and theft information. Owners and law enforcement agencies report thefts directly to NER’s database through its website. Insurers report thefts through ISO ClaimSearch, the insurance industry’s all-claims database. Through an alliance with the American Rental Association (ARA), NER can capture loss and ownership data from many of the world’s largest rental fleets and hun-dreds of smaller fleets.

Introduction


Although statistics can’t reveal all underlying reasons for the high level of equipment theft, we can draw conclusions from trends and the daily contact that NER staff members have with theft victims, insurers, and law enforcement.

Presentation and AnalysisWe’ve presented each set of data in graphs or tables to allow easy com-parison and to highlight trends. Notes explain data sources and gathering techniques. Analyses discuss the relative importance of factors that affect each set of results. We provide additional commentary where results sug-gest a particular action or response.


T H E F T S T A T I S T I C ST H E F T S T A T I S T I C S

Theft by State

N O T E S

1. Although equipment thefts occurred in every state, the top five states accounted for 45% of the total number of thefts in 2016. In 2015, the top five states accounted for 44%.

2. The table represents 7,311 of the 11,574 equipment theft reports captured by NCIC during 2016.

Rank State Thefts

1 Texas 2,375

2 North Carolina 796

3 Florida 763

4 California 694

5 Georgia 577

6 South Carolina 512

7 Tennessee 449

8 Oklahoma 445

9 Arkansas 362

10 Alabama 338

A N A LY S I S

1. Theft levels closely correspond to the amount of equipment in a particular area. In other words, the states with the highest volume of construction and agriculture—and therefore the most machinery—have the largest number of thefts.

2. Organized theft rings are likely to develop in areas with a high concentration of equipment and a large number of potential buyers of used equipment, stolen or otherwise. Higher loss ratios for insurers in certain areas reflect that development.

3. Nine of the top ten states for equipment theft in 2016 are the same states that made the top ten equipment theft list in 2015. In 2016, Alabama was added to the top ten; Indiana, previously ranked ninth, no longer made the list. Other states remained in similar positions in the ranking year over year.

C O M M E N T

Sometimes theft hot spots occur when an area is experiencing an industrial boom. The influx of con-struction work correlates with higher numbers of heavy equipment in the area—which attracts atten-tion from thieves and increases the risk of theft. NER’s regional theft alerts highlight such activity. When equipment owners are aware of these prime condi-tions for theft and know how to thwart equipment thieves, there is often a noticeable drop in theft rates.

C O M M E N T

The top 5 states account for

of all thefts. 45%

The top 10 states account for

of all thefts. 63%

Top ten states for equipment theft in 2016


N O T E S

1. The graph shows insured losses by type of location of the theft.

2. Losses by type of location of theft are displayed as a percentage of all claims.

3. Source is ISO’s Inland Marine Circular, Contractors Equipment, All Classes.

Theft by Type of Location

A N A LY S I S C O M M E N T

With regard to theft by type of location, two factors should be considered: the location where the equip-ment spends the most time and the level of security at each type of location. Most often, equipment is on a work site, labeled on the graph as “Other’s Premises.” Those work sites usually have lower levels of physical security than an “Insured’s Premises,” which is often a fenced-in compound.

It is not enough to focus solely on the security of premises and work sites. Equipment users should also secure the machines by disabling them using hydraulic cylinder locks or ignition or hydraulic system lockouts or simply by removing battery cables. Owners and users should also stage pieces of equip-ment to prevent them from being dragged onto a transport. Finally, equipment should also never be left on trailers.

Yes: 89%

No: 11%

YES 89%

Sample A

1.7” dia1” dia

NO 11%

Dedicated internal unit

Customer Web Portal/Self Service

Third Party Vendor/outsourced

Agent

Other

CHART TITLE

Do you have a first report process for incoming claims? �

49%

18% 18%

10%5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Dedicated internal unit Customer Web Portal/Self Service


Agent Other

CHART TITLE

Legacy/homegrown system: 45%Web based vendor solution embedded in claims system: 33%Other: 10%

Nothing: 12%

CHART TITLE

Yes, live customer service representative:75% Yes, customer web portal only: 23%IVR: 6%

Other: 12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50% 49%

18% 18%

10%5%

60%




Agent Other

Sample B

35%

65

49

6872 71

66 65 6367 66 67 65 63 62 61

29

38

3027 28 30 31 32 33

36 35 34 34 34 35

4

13

2 3 36 5 5 3 2 2 4

7 8 8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Other’s Premises Insured’s Premises In Transit

Mower, Riding or Garden Tractor 41%

Loaders 18%Tractor 14%

All Others 9%

Utility Vehicles 8%

Excavator 4%

Fork Lift 3%

Bulldozer 1%

Generator, Compressor, Welder 1%

Trencher 1% Roller 0%

Mower, riding or garden Tractor 4,774

Loaders 2,048

Tractor 1,575

All Others 1,086

Utility Vehicles 862

Excavator 458

Fork Lift 319

Bulldozer 166

Generator, Compressor, Welder 144

Trencher 57

Roller 53

Skid Steers 70%

Backhoe 22%

Wheel Loaders 8%

Skid Steers 1,428

Backhoes 454

Wheel Loaders 166

Type of Equipment Stolen Type of Equipment Stolen

Mower, riding or garden tractor 41%

Loader 18%

Skid steer 70%

Backhoe 22%

Wheel loader 8%

Skid Steer

Backhoe

Wheel Loader

What technical solution are you using to capture FNOL reporting? ��

How is your first notice of loss process handled? �

Types of Equipment Recovered

Skid Steer 409

Backhoe 182

Wheel Loader 30

Tractor 14%

Utility vehicle 7%

Excavator 4%

Forklift 3%

Bulldozer 1%

Generator, compressor, welder 1%

Trencher 1%

Roller 1% All others 9%

Mower, riding or garden tractor

Loader

Tractor

Utility vehicle

Excavator

Fork lift

Bulldozer

Generator, compressor, welder

Trencher

Roller

All others

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Other's Premises Insured's Premises In Transit

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Vandalism Fire damage Collision Other (see note 4) Theft

Frequency of Theft Compared with Other Risks

Theft by Month

Recovery by Month

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Janu

ary

Februa

ryMarc

hApril May Ju

ne July

Augus

t

Septem

ber

October

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Janu

ary

Februa

ryMarc

hApril May Ju

ne July

Augus

t

Septem

ber

October

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

Loader 25%

Mower, riding or garden tractor24%

Tractors 16%

Utility vehicle 9%

Excavator 6%

Forklift 5%

Bulldozer 2%


Brush chipper 1%

All others 10%

Loader


Tractor

Utility vehicle

Excavator

Fork lift

Bulldozer


Brush chipper

Roller

All others

Skid steer 66%

Backhoe 29%

Wheel loader 5%

Roller 1%


N O T E S

1. The chart represents 11,574 theft reports submitted to NCIC in 2016.

2. The inclusion of landscaping equipment—mainly commercial riding mowers—reduces the percentage of all other categories.

3. The top five types of equipment account for 84% of all losses. The top five also represented 84% of all thefts in 2015.

4. “Tractor” is a broad category, including compact, utility, and agricultural tractors.

5. More than 50 types of equipment make up the “All others” category. They include but are not limited to graders, scrapers, wood chippers, trenchers, and miscellaneous farming equipment.

Types of Equipment Stolen

A N A LY S I S

1. Two key factors determine the type of equipment that thieves are most likely to steal: value and mobility. Value is the primary factor, except for items too large to move on a small trailer. For instance, large excavators are valuable but seldom stolen because they are difficult to move.

2. Another factor to consider is the number of each type of equipment in circulation. For example, skid steer loaders account for more than 36% of new construction equipment financed in the United States in the last five years.

3. Dozers and wheel loaders are the most valuable types of equipment in the top ten, but backhoes and skid steers are easier to transport and perform multiple functions on job sites; therefore, the latter group represents a greater percentage of thefts.

4. The types of high-value equipment reported stolen frequently are wheeled machines, such as wheel loaders.

C O M M E N T

Equipment owners should consider mobility of equip-ment as well as value when planning security efforts.

Yes: 89%

No: 11%

YES 89%

Sample A

1.7” dia1” dia

NO 11%




Agent

Other

CHART TITLE


49%

18% 18%

10%5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



Agent Other

CHART TITLE


Nothing: 12%

CHART TITLE


Other: 12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50% 49%

18% 18%

10%5%

60%




Agent Other

Sample B

35%

65

49

6872 71

66 65 6367 66 67 65 63 62 61

29

38

3027 28 30 31 32 33

36 35 34 34 34 35

4

13

2 3 36 5 5 3 2 2 4

7 8 8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015




All Others 9%

Utility Vehicles 8%

Excavator 4%

Fork Lift 3%

Bulldozer 1%




Loaders 2,048

Tractor 1,575

All Others 1,086


Excavator 458

Fork Lift 319

Bulldozer 166


Trencher 57

Roller 53

Skid Steers 70%

Backhoe 22%

Wheel Loaders 8%

Skid Steers 1,428

Backhoes 454

Wheel Loaders 166



Loader 18%

Skid steer 70%

Backhoe 22%

Wheel loader 8%

Skid Steer

Backhoe

Wheel Loader




Skid Steer 409

Backhoe 182

Wheel Loader 30

Tractor 14%

Utility vehicle 7%

Excavator 4%

Forklift 3%

Bulldozer 1%


Trencher 1%



Loader

Tractor

Utility vehicle

Excavator

Fork lift

Bulldozer


Trencher

Roller

All others

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015



Theft by Month

Recovery by Month

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Janu

ary

Februa

ryMarc

hApril May Ju

ne July

Augus

t

Septem

ber

October

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Janu

ary

Februa

ryMarc

hApril May Ju

ne July

Augus

t

Septem

ber

October

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

Loader 25%


Tractors 16%

Utility vehicle 9%

Excavator 6%

Forklift 5%

Bulldozer 2%


Brush chipper 1%

All others 10%

Loader


Tractor

Utility vehicle

Excavator

Fork lift

Bulldozer


Brush chipper

Roller

All others

Skid steer 66%

Backhoe 29%

Wheel loader 5%

Roller 1%


N O T E S

1. Frequency of risk is displayed as a percentage of all claims.

2. Source is ISO’s Inland Marine Circular, Contractors Equipment, All Classes.

3. We base the figures on frequency, not value. Theft still tops the list by value, although by a smaller margin.

4. “Other” includes claims involving windstorm, hail, water damage, flood, volcanic action, and earthquake.


C O M M E N T

For the first time in the history of this published report theft does not account for the highest number of losses when compared with other risks. Review of subsequent reports to come will help determine if this was an anomaly or a developing trend as the theft rate has remained relatively con-sistent over the prior 10 years.. While equipment owners can reduce the likelihood of theft and improve the chances of recovery by taking simple preventive steps that are both cost-effective and measurable the dramatic decrease in theft incidents in this year’s report needs to be compared to upcoming years to determine if training and educa-

tion associated with equipment theft has started to make a bigger impact.

Yes: 89%

No: 11%

YES 89%

Sample A

1.7” dia1” dia

NO 11%




Agent

Other

CHART TITLE


49%

18% 18%

10%5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



Agent Other

CHART TITLE


Nothing: 12%

CHART TITLE


Other: 12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50% 49%

18% 18%

10%5%

60%




Agent Other

Sample B

35%

65

49

6872 71

66 65 6367 66 67 65 63 62 61

29

38

3027 28 30 31 32 33

36 35 34 34 34 35

4

13

2 3 36 5 5 3 2 2 4

7 8 8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015




All Others 9%

Utility Vehicles 8%

Excavator 4%

Fork Lift 3%

Bulldozer 1%




Loaders 2,048

Tractor 1,575

All Others 1,086


Excavator 458

Fork Lift 319

Bulldozer 166


Trencher 57

Roller 53

Skid Steers 70%

Backhoe 22%

Wheel Loaders 8%

Skid Steers 1,428

Backhoes 454

Wheel Loaders 166



Loader 18%

Skid steer 70%

Backhoe 22%

Wheel loader 8%

Skid Steer

Backhoe

Wheel Loader




Skid Steer 409

Backhoe 182

Wheel Loader 30

Tractor 14%

Utility vehicle 7%

Excavator 4%

Forklift 3%

Bulldozer 1%


Trencher 1%



Loader

Tractor

Utility vehicle

Excavator

Fork lift

Bulldozer


Trencher

Roller

All others

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015



Theft by Month

Recovery by Month

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Janu

ary

Februa

ryMarc

hApril May Ju

ne July

Augus

t

Septem

ber

October

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Janu

ary

Februa

ryMarc

hApril May Ju

ne July

Augus

t

Septem

ber

October

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

Loader 25%


Tractors 16%

Utility vehicle 9%

Excavator 6%

Forklift 5%

Bulldozer 2%


Brush chipper 1%

All others 10%

Loader


Tractor

Utility vehicle

Excavator

Fork lift

Bulldozer


Brush chipper

Roller

All others

Skid steer 66%

Backhoe 29%

Wheel loader 5%

Roller 1%


Rank Manufacturer Thefts

1 2,420

2 1,315

3 882

4 773

5 368

6 349

7 277

8 235

9 218

10 203

Theft by Manufacturer

A N A LY S I S

1. While all makes of off-road equipment have little or no standard equipment security, the manufacturers on the list at left make the most compact and, thus, most easily stolen equipment. The list does not necessarily follow the entire market share of all heavy equipment manufactured.

2. If two pieces of equipment are equally easy to steal, a thief is more likely to steal the machine of greater value. Age, condition, and brand determine a machine’s perceived value.

N O T E S

1. Source is the total number of thefts reported to NCIC during 2016.


N O T E S

1. The graph illustrates equipment losses by the month the theft was reported.

Theft by Month

A N A LY S I S

Theft levels closely correspond with peak construc-tion periods. In other words, the months with the highest volume of theft are the ones that have increased equipment activity due to cooperative weather, longer days, and the end of a crop growth cycle. As equipment owners move items between job sites and fields, there are greater risks, exposures, and opportunities for theft. There is an additional likelihood that thefts may go unnoticed for a longer period of time than when equipment is stolen from an owner’s yard.

Yes: 89%

No: 11%

YES 89%

Sample A

1.7” dia1” dia

NO 11%




Agent

Other

CHART TITLE


49%

18% 18%

10%5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



Agent Other

CHART TITLE


Nothing: 12%

CHART TITLE


Other: 12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50% 49%

18% 18%

10%5%

60%




Agent Other

Sample B

35%

65

49

6872 71

66 65 6367 66 67 65 63 62 61

29

38

3027 28 30 31 32 33

36 35 34 34 34 35

4

13

2 3 36 5 5 3 2 2 4

7 8 8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015




All Others 9%

Utility Vehicles 8%

Excavator 4%

Fork Lift 3%

Bulldozer 1%




Loaders 2,048

Tractor 1,575

All Others 1,086


Excavator 458

Fork Lift 319

Bulldozer 166


Trencher 57

Roller 53

Skid Steers 70%

Backhoe 22%

Wheel Loaders 8%

Skid Steers 1,428

Backhoes 454

Wheel Loaders 166



Loader 18%

Skid steer 70%

Backhoe 22%

Wheel loader 8%

Skid Steer

Backhoe

Wheel Loader




Skid Steer 409

Backhoe 182

Wheel Loader 30

Tractor 14%

Utility vehicle 7%

Excavator 4%

Forklift 3%

Bulldozer 1%


Trencher 1%



Loader

Tractor

Utility vehicle

Excavator

Fork lift

Bulldozer


Trencher

Roller

All others

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015



Theft by Month

Recovery by Month

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Janu

ary

Februa

ryMarc

hApril May Ju

ne July

Augus

t

Septem

ber

October

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Janu

ary

Februa

ryMarc

hApril May Ju

ne July

Augus

t

Septem

ber

October

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

Loader 25%


Tractors 16%

Utility vehicle 9%

Excavator 6%

Forklift 5%

Bulldozer 2%


Brush chipper 1%

All others 10%

Loader


Tractor

Utility vehicle

Excavator

Fork lift

Bulldozer


Brush chipper

Roller

All others

Skid steer 66%

Backhoe 29%

Wheel loader 5%

Roller 1%


Model Year of Equipment Stolen

A N A LY S I S

The newer a piece of equipment, the more likely it is that someone will steal it. If given the choice between two similar machines a thief will choose the newer, more valuable machine because they are equally easy to steal. Those results are in stark contrast to larger trends in automobile theft, where older models account for more stolen cars. Newer cars carry more sophisticated antitheft technology. Heavy equipment design, however, emphasizes productivity instead of security. The necessity for multiple operators leads to little or no antitheft technology. Many heavy equip-ment manufacturers installed as few security features on 2016 models as they did on 1990 models.

N O T E S


2. Each piece of equipment manufactured in 2016 faced potential theft for only part of the year—from the date sold to December 31.

3. Results may be slightly skewed because owners often misstate the date of manufacture. For example, a buyer may list a 2015 model purchased in 2016 as a 2016 model.

Year Amount

2016 1,987

2015 1,613

2014 1,015

2013 846

2012 700

2011 496

2010 496

2008 420

2007 432

2006 444 Of the thefts reported in 2016, 56% were machines manufactured in the last five years.

Equipment produced in the last ten years

accounted for

of thefts reported to NCIC in 2016.

75%

The table lists the top ten years of manufacture for machines stolen in 2016:


Top Ten Cities for Equipment Theft

Rank City State Count

1 Houston TX 287

2 San Antonio TX 94

3 Conroe TX 92

4 Miami FL 82

5 Dallas TX 81

6 Oklahoma City OK 69

7 Fort Worth TX 60

8 Tampa FL 58

9 Orlando FL 56

10 Liberty City TX 55

N O T E S


2. All of the top ten cities are in the top ten states for theft.

3. Fort Worth, Tampa, and Orlando are all new to this list. It should be noted that Fort Worth is a city in north central Texas, the number-one-ranked state for theft in 2016.

A N A LY S I S

It is not surprising that cities with the greatest number of thefts are often located in states that rank among the top ten for theft. The cities tend to be in states that are near the southern border, have a major port, are experiencing construction booms, or possess all of these characteristics.


Theft by Census Population

RankCore-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)

2016 Thefts

2013 Population Estimate

Heavy Equipment Theft Rate per

10,000 Inhabitants

1 Palestine, TX 49 57,938 8.46

2 Williston, ND 16 29,595 5.41

3 Athens, TN 25 52,341 4.78

4 Laurinburg, NC 17 36,025 4.72

5 Tifton, GA 18 40,286 4.47

6 Athens, TX 33 78,675 4.19

7 Corsicana, TX 19 48,038 3.96

8 Helena, AR 7 20,399 3.43

9 Douglas, GA 14 43,220 3.24

10 Emporia, KS 10 33,510 2.98

N O T E S

1. Sources are the total number of thefts reported to NCIC during 2016 and the 2013 U.S. Census report.

2. The term “Core-Based Statistical Area” (CBSA) is a collective term for both metro and micro areas. A metro area contains a core urban area population of 50,000 or greater, and a micro area contains a core urban population of at least 10,000 but less than 50,000. Each metro or micro area consists of one or more counties and includes the counties containing the core urban area, as well as any adjacent counties that have a high degree of social and economic integration (as measured by commuting to work) with the urban core.

A N A LY S I S

It is not surprising to see Texas, Oklahoma, and North Carolina in the top ten list for theft rates in a given CBSA since they are also on the list of top ten states for thefts for 2016. What is surprising is that none of the regions in the top ten have a population greater than 100,000. Although the population is small in these regions, more thefts occur per person than in the larger metro politan areas.

The relatively high rate of theft by population in these regions indicates that equipment owners should not be lax with security, no matter how remote or loosely populated an area may be. In fact, the data suggests

that equipment owners and dealers should be more concerned about equipment theft in regions with smaller populations.


The Cost of Equipment Theft

N O T E S

1. The estimates do not include the theft of tools or building materials or damage to equipment and premises caused during a theft.

2. The estimates do not include losses from business interruption. Those losses include the cost of rentals, project-delay penalties, and wasted workforce and management time.

A N A LY S I S

Several factors contribute to the high level of equipment theft:

• the value of heavy equipment*• poor equipment and site security• opportunities to sell stolen equipment in

the used-equipment market• low risk of detection and arrest• lenient penalties for thieves if prosecuted

and convicted

*The average estimated value of a stolen piece of equipment is $29,258.

At present, there is no centralized, accurate, or exhaustive database that includes every loss. NER examines detailed theft reports from a specific area that accurately reports theft—such as a fleet, industry, or region—to make assumptions and develop trends. Then we apply those trends to the entire market share of that specific area to build a national figure.

Annual estimates of the cost of equipment theft vary from about $300 million to $1 billion,

with most estimates in the range of

$400 million.


R E C O V E R Y S T A T I S T I C S

Recovery Rates

N O T E S

1. Of the 11,574 reported equipment thefts in 2016, NCIC reported 2,442 recoveries.

2. The recovery rate does not reflect pieces of equipment that law enforcement recovered but did not mark as recovered.

3. The recovery rate does not reflect unreported thefts.


A number of factors contribute to the low recovery rate of stolen equipment:

• delays in discovery of thefts and subsequent delays between time of the occurrence and reporting

• equipment owners’ inaccurate or nonexistent ownership records

• complex and often ambiguous equipment identification number formats

• lack of prepurchase screening of used equipment

• limited law enforcement resources dedicated to equipment investigations

• limited, possibly inaccurate equipment information in law enforcement systems

• police reporting and search errors, and misunderstanding of correct equipment theft reporting practices

• NCIC equipment information reporting errors in which equipment is erroneously added to the “article file” rather than the “vehicle file”

When it comes to improving theft recoveries, the area that needs the most improvement is also the area that promises immediate results: making accurate information available to law enforcement 24 hours a day through NER and the NICB. At a minimum, equipment owners should keep accurate lists of equipment with PIN/serial numbers and submit them to law enforcement, their insurers, and NER as soon they discover a theft. When they purchase equip-ment, owners should register serial numbers in the NER database so that the information is available to law enforcement 24 hours a day. In the event of a theft, law enforcement can identify the equipment even during weekends or at night.

Low recovery rates make it difficult to draw con-crete conclusions from recovery statistics alone. By including information from investigations, such as those in the Case Studies section, we can gain an idea of how equipment is stolen, where it goes, and who steals it. The NICB compiled 11,574 reports of stolen machines in 2016. Conversely, in 2016, the NICB reported 2,442 recoveries of equipment listed in the NCIC active theft file. The file includes all active thefts recovered in 2016.

Only

of stolen equipment was recovered in

2016.

21%

R E C O V E R Y S T A T I S T I C S


Recovery by State

N O T E S

1. In 2016, law enforcement recovered most machines in the same state where they were stolen.

2. The bigger the state and the more demand for equipment within that state, the lower the chance that the equipment will leave the state.

3. If thieves do not sell equipment quickly in the local vicinity, there is a greater chance they will move equipment out of state, especially as more time passes since the date of the theft.

4. Law enforcement is less likely to recover equipment when thieves move it far away, especially out of state. Therefore, more stolen equipment may be moving out of state.

Rank State Recoveries

1 Texas 372

2 California 340

3 Florida 150

4 Georgia 99

5 North Carolina 96

6 Oklahoma 95

7 Arkansas 92

8 South Carolina 80

9 Indiana 74

10 Kentucky 71


1. A low level of surveillance in the used-equipment market bolsters thieves’ confidence in committing crimes. They feel safe selling equipment in neighboring states—or even as close as neighboring counties.

2. Recoveries made at ports and borders prove that thieves do export stolen equipment; however, selling stolen equipment within the United States is easier and cheaper. The cost of export is worthwhile only when thieves can raise prices abroad or when they steal equipment close to a border.

In the fight against equipment theft, it is important to act both locally (for example, by circulating theft reports) and nationally (for example, by submitting data to national databases).

The top ten states account for

of recoveries.60%

Top ten states for equipment recovery


N O T E S

1. The “Loader” category includes all subclasses: front-end, tracked, wheeled, skid steer, and backhoe.

2. The “Excavator” category includes both full-size and compact or mini-excavators.


A N A LY S I S

The types of equipment recovered most are usually the types of equipment stolen most. The gap between theft and recovery narrows as NICB training encourages law enforcement to look more closely at the machines stolen most frequently.

Yes: 89%

No: 11%

YES 89%

Sample A

1.7” dia1” dia

NO 11%




Agent

Other

CHART TITLE


49%

18% 18%

10%5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



Agent Other

CHART TITLE


Nothing: 12%

CHART TITLE


Other: 12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50% 49%

18% 18%

10%5%

60%




Agent Other

Sample B

35%

65

49

6872 71

66 65 6367 66 67 65 63 62 61

29

38

3027 28 30 31 32 33

36 35 34 34 34 35

4

13

2 3 36 5 5 3 2 2 4

7 8 8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015




All Others 9%

Utility Vehicles 8%

Excavator 4%

Fork Lift 3%

Bulldozer 1%




Loaders 2,048

Tractor 1,575

All Others 1,086


Excavator 458

Fork Lift 319

Bulldozer 166


Trencher 57

Roller 53

Skid Steers 70%

Backhoe 22%

Wheel Loaders 8%

Skid Steers 1,428

Backhoes 454

Wheel Loaders 166



Loader 18%

Skid steer 70%

Backhoe 22%

Wheel loader 8%

Skid Steer

Backhoe

Wheel Loader




Skid Steer 409

Backhoe 182

Wheel Loader 30

Tractor 14%

Utility vehicle 7%

Excavator 4%

Forklift 3%

Bulldozer 1%


Trencher 1%



Loader

Tractor

Utility vehicle

Excavator

Fork lift

Bulldozer


Trencher

Roller

All others

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015



Theft by Month

Recovery by Month

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Janu

ary

Februa

ryMarc

hApril May Ju

ne July

Augus

t

Septem

ber

October

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Janu

ary

Februa

ryMarc

hApril May Ju

ne July

Augus

t

Septem

ber

October

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

Loader 25%


Tractors 16%

Utility vehicle 9%

Excavator 6%

Forklift 5%

Bulldozer 2%


Brush chipper 1%

All others 10%

Loader


Tractor

Utility vehicle

Excavator

Fork lift

Bulldozer


Brush chipper

Roller

All others

Skid steer 66%

Backhoe 29%

Wheel loader 5%

Roller 1%


Rank Manufacturer Recoveries

1 526

2 261

3 247

4 244

5 88

6 43

7 38

8 36

9 33

10 31

Recovery by Manufacturer

A N A LY S I S

The top five manufacturers account for 56% of all recoveries. The make of recovered equipment closely mirrors the make of stolen equipment.

N O T E S

1. Source is the total number of recoveries of equipment stolen in 2016.


N O T E S

1. Source is the total number of recoveries of equipment stolen in 2016.

Recovery by Month

A N A LY S I S

As the busy construction and farming seasons slow down and jobs near completion, job sites become safer and more accessible to law enforcement. Larger equipment is generally idle at this point, and even smaller units begin to sit for longer periods as finish-ing work is done. It is not uncommon for contractors using stolen equipment to abandon or leave it behind at the end of a job because maintenance and storage may be more costly than stealing a new machine next year.

Yes: 89%

No: 11%

YES 89%

Sample A

1.7” dia1” dia

NO 11%




Agent

Other

CHART TITLE


49%

18% 18%

10%5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



Agent Other

CHART TITLE


Nothing: 12%

CHART TITLE


Other: 12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50% 49%

18% 18%

10%5%

60%




Agent Other

Sample B

35%

65

49

6872 71

66 65 6367 66 67 65 63 62 61

29

38

3027 28 30 31 32 33

36 35 34 34 34 35

4

13

2 3 36 5 5 3 2 2 4

7 8 8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015




All Others 9%

Utility Vehicles 8%

Excavator 4%

Fork Lift 3%

Bulldozer 1%




Loaders 2,048

Tractor 1,575

All Others 1,086


Excavator 458

Fork Lift 319

Bulldozer 166


Trencher 57

Roller 53

Skid Steers 70%

Backhoe 22%

Wheel Loaders 8%

Skid Steers 1,428

Backhoes 454

Wheel Loaders 166



Loader 18%

Skid steer 70%

Backhoe 22%

Wheel loader 8%

Skid Steer

Backhoe

Wheel Loader




Skid Steer 409

Backhoe 182

Wheel Loader 30

Tractor 14%

Utility vehicle 7%

Excavator 4%

Forklift 3%

Bulldozer 1%


Trencher 1%



Loader

Tractor

Utility vehicle

Excavator

Fork lift

Bulldozer


Trencher

Roller

All others

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015



Theft by Month

Recovery by Month

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Janu

ary

Februa

ryMarc

hApril May Ju

ne July

Augus

t

Septem

ber

October

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Janu

ary

Februa

ryMarc

hApril May Ju

ne July

Augus

t

Septem

ber

October

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

Loader 25%


Tractors 16%

Utility vehicle 9%

Excavator 6%

Forklift 5%

Bulldozer 2%


Brush chipper 1%

All others 10%

Loader


Tractor

Utility vehicle

Excavator

Fork lift

Bulldozer


Brush chipper

Roller

All others

Skid steer 66%

Backhoe 29%

Wheel loader 5%

Roller 1%


Year Recoveries

2016 365

2015 322

2014 208

2013 189

2012 153

2011 111

2007 102

2010 95

2006 95

2005 89

N O T E S

1. Source is the total number of recoveries of equipment stolen in 2016. Each piece of equipment manufactured in 2016 faced potential theft for only part of the year, from the date sold to December 31.

2. Results may be skewed slightly because owners often misstate the date of manufacture. For example, a buyer may list a 2010 model purchased in 2011 as a 2011 model.

N O T E S

1. Source is the total number of equipment recovered in 2016.

2. If a thief does not sell the equipment immediately in the local area, there is a greater likelihood that, as more time passes, the thief will move equipment out of state and sell it to a purchaser that seems to have no knowledge of the theft.

3. Fresno, CA, and San Jose, CA, are tied for tenth place.

Model Year of Equipment Recovered

Top Ten Cities for Equipment Recovery

A N A LY S I S

A N A LY S I S

Newer equipment draws more attention from both law enforcement and thieves. It is not uncommon for older equipment to sit unused in lots or yards, but newer equipment is more likely to be noticed as out of place by officers.

Recoveries tend to be localized near high-theft areas, suggesting that a good deal of stolen equipment does not move far. This may be due to the rules of supply and demand: where there is equipment to steal, there are machines that are needed. Unfortu-nately, not all high-theft areas have high recoveries. Areas with proper funding, training, and dedicated heavy equipment task forces have much higher recovery rates. It is interesting to note California’s sig-nificant presence on this list. This state’s mandatory statewide registration programs provide law enforce-ment with many opportunities to access equipment and, therefore, make recoveries.

City State Recoveries

Houston TX 47

Bakersfield CA 33

Miami FL 30

Fort Myers FL 20

Dallas TX 18

Louisville KY 17

Oklahoma City OK 16

Sacramento CA 16

Salinas CA 16

Fresno CA 15

San Jose CA 15

B Y T H E N U M B E R S


B Y T H E N U M B E R S

Key Statistics

11,841,849

$12,054,311

Number of ownership records in the NER database

121,238 Theft reports in

the NER database

2,646Law enforcement officers trained by the NICB on heavy equipment

investigations in 2016

18States in which the NICB

conducted training in 2016

12,302 Fleets with equipment registered

with NER

412Recoveries made by

law enforcement with the help of the NICB and NER in 2016

50Number of insurance companies or agencies offering incentives

to register equipment on the NER database

Value of items recovered by law enforcement with the help of the NICB and NER in 2016

$29,258 Average value of machines recovered by police with

NICB and NER assistance

N O T E S

1. The above numbers give a snapshot of NER and NICB operations as of December 31, 2016.


2016 Case Studies

Anonymous Tip Leads to $330,000 Property Recovery An anonymous tip led NICB Agent Hogan to reach out to the Delta Regional Auto Theft Team (Delta RATT) in San Joaquin County, California. The inves-tigators obtained a search warrant for a Lodi residence, where they seized two disguised stolen vehicles, a disguised stolen watercraft, numerous ammunition rounds, and suspected methamphetamine. Several of the stolen vehicles had been taken from dealer lots in the San Francisco Bay Area. The sub-ject was subsequently placed in custody and booked into the San Joaquin County jail.

Information gleaned from the search led to a second search warrant for the subject’s 150-acre ranch in San Joaquin County, California. A two-day search turned up 17 stolen vehicles as well as all-terrain vehicles, off-road motorcycles, watercraft, farm equipment, and construction equipment, all of which were identified and recovered. The total value of recovered property was approximately $330,000.

The subject was subsequently charged with numer-ous vehicle theft violations through the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office. The case is currently working its way through the judicial system.

Stolen Equipment Discovered in Michigan A specialized equipment analyst at NICB Field Operations was notified by NER that a construction equipment company in Allegan, Michigan, had unknowingly purchased several pieces of used equip-ment that were later found to be stolen.

Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) Hanley contacted the Michigan State Police and provided them with information about the business and the equipment in question. The Michigan State Police responded and were able to locate, identify, and recover four of the seven stolen units: Case 570-LXT, Case 597 Super-L, Case 580-L, and Case 580 Super-M. The Michigan State Police have information regarding the location of the other three units and are working with the police departments that originally took the theft reports. The Michigan State Police advise that the subject(s) who sold the equipment are well known to them and have extensive criminal histories. The investigation is ongoing.


Summary

Although complete statistics do not exist, it is clear from available data that equipment theft is a serious problem. Estimates derived from data in this year’s report suggest the total value of stolen equipment in 2016 is close to $300 million. Those numbers do not include losses from business interrup-tion, such as short-term rental costs, project-delay penalties, and wasted workforce and management time. By frequency of loss, theft is a greater problem than any other type of equipment risk.

Equipment theft levels coincide with the amount of equipment in a particular area. The states with the highest volume of construction and agriculture report the largest number of thefts.

Mobility and value of equipment are the lead contributors to theft. Most thefts are from work sites with little or no security. Given two similar types of machines, a thief will steal the newer one because it is more valuable. In contrast to the automobile industry, there is little difference in equipment security between a new machine and one made several years ago.

Law enforcement recovers as little as 20% of stolen equipment. Recovery locations and types closely mirror theft locations and types.


Conclusion

Equipment owners and insurers should increase risk management for easily transportable, high-value equipment.

Both equipment security and work-site security are necessary to prevent theft. Work-site security is especially critical because equipment often sits in areas with little or no physical security.

Officers investigating equipment theft should focus on popular targets and look for red flags, such as unusual location, type of transport, missing decals, altered paint, and especially, missing identification plates.

The area that needs the most improvement is also the area that promises immediate results: supplying accurate information to law enforcement 24 hours a day through NER and the NICB.


545 Washington Boulevard, Jersey City NJ 07310-1686 1.800.888.4476 www.verisk.com

2016 equipment theft report - workmax

Documents